↓ Skip to main content

What proportion of declared QTL in plants are false?

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical & Applied Genetics, April 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
What proportion of declared QTL in plants are false?
Published in
Theoretical & Applied Genetics, April 2004
DOI 10.1007/s00122-004-1639-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Bernardo

Abstract

The false discovery rate (FDR) is the probability that a quantitative trait locus (QTL) is false, given that a QTL has been declared. A misconception in QTL mapping is that the FDR is equal to the comparison-wise significance level, alpha(C). The objective of this simulation study was to determine the FDR in an F(2) mapping population, given different numbers of QTL, population sizes, and trait heritabilities. Markers linked to QTL were detected by multiple regression of phenotype on marker genotype. Phenotypic selection and marker-based recurrent selection were compared. The FDR increased as alpha(C) increased. Notably, the FDR was often 10-30 times higher than the alpha(C) level used. Regardless of the number of QTL, heritability, or size of the genome, the FDR was < or =0.01 when alpha(C) was 0.0001. The FDR increased to 0.82 when alpha(C) was 0.05, heritability was low, and only one QTL controlled the trait. An alpha(C) of 0.05 led to a low FDR when many QTL (30 or 100) controlled the trait, but this lower FDR was accompanied by a diminished power to detect QTL. Larger mapping populations led to both lower a FDR and increased power. Relaxed significance levels of alpha(C)=0.1 or 0.2 led to the largest responses to marker-based recurrent selection, despite the high FDR. To prevent false QTL from confusing the literature and databases, a detected QTL should, in general, be reported as a QTL only if it was identified at a stringent significance level, e.g., alpha(C) congruent with 0.0001.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 3%
United States 4 3%
India 3 2%
Philippines 2 2%
Malaysia 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 100 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 45%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 8 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 109 90%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 2 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2004.
All research outputs
#2,018,459
of 3,624,912 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical & Applied Genetics
#109
of 253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,477,478
of 2,723,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical & Applied Genetics
#81
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,624,912 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 253 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 2,723,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.